Effective defense is no longer a criteria for scoring. This means that defending takedowns or blocking submissions and strikes don't count for anything. Under the new rules, the only advantage that defense brings to the table is that it keeps you from being finished by offense. The only way you can actually score points is through offense.Striking and grappling have been given equal weight. In the past, striking was always listed first as a scoring opportunity, thereby giving it more importance. That's not the case anymore. Striking and grappling are, from this point forward, to be viewed as equal offensive measures.Heavier strikes will be given more weight than number of strikes landed. They're now classifying damage as "effective damage," which means strikes that do more damaged will be weighed more heavily than an overall strike count. Of course, this is still a visual thing, as judges don't have access to in-fight statistics.Grappling moves that are scored heavily: Takedowns, reversals, submissions, transitions, activity and threatening moves from the fighter on the bottom and attempted submissions that lead to the threatened fighter being tired. In theory, this will put more weight on guys who play a great guard game and constantly threaten submissions off their back. Witness the Miguel Torres vs. Demetrious Johnson fight for an example. Torres consistently threatened with submissions and used plenty of sweeps and reversals from the bottom, but Johnson was awarded the fight because he was on top. This, to me, is one of the more significant rule changes.Effective aggression is now defined. Aggression in the cage is now defined as a fighter moving forward and using legal techniques. Attacking with submissions or strikes on the ground is included.Control is also defined. "Octagon control" means that a fighter is dictating the pace and position of the fight in the cage.

Effective defense is no longer a criteria for scoring. This means that defending takedowns or blocking submissions and strikes don't count for anything. Under the new rules, the only advantage that defense brings to the table is that it keeps you from being finished by offense. The only way you can actually score points is through offense.Striking and grappling have been given equal weight. In the past, striking was always listed first as a scoring opportunity, thereby giving it more importance. That's not the case anymore. Striking and grappling are, from this point forward, to be viewed as equal offensive measures.Heavier strikes will be given more weight than number of strikes landed. They're now classifying damage as "effective damage," which means strikes that do more damaged will be weighed more heavily than an overall strike count. Of course, this is still a visual thing, as judges don't have access to in-fight statistics.Grappling moves that are scored heavily: Takedowns, reversals, submissions, transitions, activity and threatening moves from the fighter on the bottom and attempted submissions that lead to the threatened fighter being tired. In theory, this will put more weight on guys who play a great guard game and constantly threaten submissions off their back. Witness the Miguel Torres vs. Demetrious Johnson fight for an example. Torres consistently threatened with submissions and used plenty of sweeps and reversals from the bottom, but Johnson was awarded the fight because he was on top. This, to me, is one of the more significant rule changes.Effective aggression is now defined. Aggression in the cage is now defined as a fighter moving forward and using legal techniques. Attacking with submissions or strikes on the ground is included.Control is also defined. "Octagon control" means that a fighter is dictating the pace and position of the fight in the cage.

The competency of the judges is far and away the most important factor, though. And I'm a huge fan of half-point scoring. More thoroughly defining the criteria can't hurt, but I think the other two changes are more important. The ACs are a joke, though, so I don't expect anything at all to get cleaned up.

Flragnararch:well you can give up on the half point scoring. They tested it and it made absolutely no difference, which was reported alongside these changes in the news articles.

Also, fark you judges.

Any system is going to fail when the judges suck ass.

Take the Machida/Rampage fight. Under competent whole-point scoring, it goes 10-9 Rampage, 10-9 Rampage, 10-9 Machida for a 29-28 Rampage win. Under competent half-point scoring, it goes 10-9.5 Rampage, 10-9.5 Rampage, 10-8.5 Machida for a 29-28.5 win for Machida. Easy fight to score under both systems, and competent judging brings a different winner with each system. I think the half-point system is superior, but am on the record as saying competency in judges is the #1 factor by a mile.